The Madras High Court, sitting in Chennai, has issued a direction to the Director General of Police to extend police protection to CV Shanmugam, a sitting member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and a senior functionary of the AIADMK. The order was passed by Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan after considering a writ petition filed by Shanmugam alleging continuous threats to his life and limb.
Justice Ilanthiraiyan observed that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for the grant of police protection. The court noted that Shanmugam is not only a legislator but also holds several organisational posts within the AIADMK, which, in the court’s view, enhances the relevance of securing his personal safety.
The background of the matter traces back to 2006, when Shanmugam, then serving as a minister in the AIADMK cabinet, was assaulted by a gang linked to a political rival. The attack, carried out with deadly weapons from a two‑wheeler, resulted in the death of his brother while Shanmugam himself escaped injury. An FIR was registered in connection with the incident and the trial remains pending.
Following the 2006 assault, the petitioner was initially provided with police protection. However, that protection was later withdrawn. Shanmugam approached the court challenging the withdrawal, and the earlier judicial order had set aside the withdrawal and directed the authorities to take an appropriate decision in light of the persisting threat.
Despite that direction, the petitioner informed the court that the police had not reinstated any special security detail, maintaining that there was no necessity for such measures. The police submitted a threat assessment report from various intelligence agencies which concluded that Shanmugam was not facing any imminent danger to his life, except for the unresolved murder case stemming from the 2006 attack.
The petitioner further stated that, since 2006, he had lodged twenty complaints with the police alleging various forms of intimidation and harassment. While some of those complaints led to the registration of FIRs, others were closed after a detailed enquiry. The court examined the documents and found that the complaints pertained to different sets of allegations, which, according to the bench, precluded the possibility of transferring the investigation of those cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
On the question of transferring the investigation to the CBI, the court observed that the varied nature of the allegations made such a transfer untenable. Nevertheless, the bench emphasized that the continuous life threat faced by the petitioner could not be ignored.
Taking into account the petitioner’s assertions, the history of violence, the pending murder trial, and the pattern of complaints, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan concluded that there was sufficient ground to intervene. The court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a prima facie case for the protection of his life and limb.
Accordingly, the court directed the second respondent, the Director General of Police, to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner forthwith, including the provision of necessary weapons. The order is to be implemented immediately.
The appearance of counsel was noted as Mrs P Karthika Kamal representing the petitioner, Mr E Balamurugan, while the respondents were represented by Mr Arun Anbumani, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), and Mr K Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor (CBI).
The decision underscores the court’s willingness to intervene when a public representative alleges sustained threats, even when administrative agencies contend that no imminent danger exists. It also highlights the procedural limits on transferring investigations to central agencies when the complaints involve disparate allegations.